Bawku has been in the news since November 2021 but things took a particularly violent turn the past weeks and caught national attention. Many Ghanaians, sadly including some individual state, government and opposition functionaries have literally ignored the violence as barbaric northerners killing themselves or shied away from publicly commenting on the issue because it is “too sensitive” or “too complicated”. Some media houses and personnel have largely been cowered and intimidated by parties in the conflict from doing objective journalistic work to educate Ghanaians on the issue. So-called security experts who know little to nothing about the geography, let alone history of Bawku line up on national TV stations to propagate falsehood and misinformation and offer lame academic opinions.
CHIEFTAINCY THE MAIN ISSUE.
First of all, the conflict is supposed to be between Kusasis and Mamprusis (two different ethnic groups) over Bawku chieftaincy. Mamprusis claim to be the rightful rulers of Bawku because their forefathers have been chiefs of Bawku enskinned by the chief of Nalerigu or Nayiri. Kusasis counter-claim that Bawku is their traditional territory and that Mamprusi chiefs were imposed on them during colonial rule in 1932.
When the conflict first erupted in the 50s, the colonial government set up a Commission of Inquiry to investigate. The commission after visiting the area and interviewing key figures from both sides concluded in its report that Bawku is indeed a Kusasi territory. The government of the day issued a whitepaper declaring Kusasis owners of Bawku and the first Kusasi Bawku Naba, Abugrago Asigri Azoka I, elected by the Kusasis, as the rightful chief. The Mamprusis contested in the Appeals Court, which ruled in 1957 that Bawku belonged to Kusasis. In 1958 the new Bawku Naba was elevated to a position of Paramountcy, ranking alongside the Chief of Nalerigu or Nayiri.
MILITARY MEDDLING.
The first Kusasi Bawku Naba ruled from 1956 to 1966 when the Military Junta passed a Chieftaincy Amendment Decree, NLCD 112, destooling and deskinning all chiefs deemed sympathetic to the CPP government. Bawku chieftaincy was thus handed back to the Mamprusis. The same decree lowered the rank of the Bawku Naba from Paramountcy to Divisional Chief under the Nayiri. The Kusasis pursued the case under the Acheampong regime in 1972 and in response the Secretary to the Supreme Military Council, G. B. Boahene declared:
My investigations into your allegations have revealed that the area in question is called Bawku District Council and not Mamprusi District Council.
This alone is evidence that the area belongs to the Kusasis. Be that as it may, you might have realised that for some time now, there has been so complete a fusion of the tribes in the area that it is difficult to distinguish between Mamprusis and Kusasis. It is observed that, very few of the 18 Canton Chiefs in the district are Mamprusis. And once nearly all the 18 Canton Chiefs are Kusasis and have been properly enskinned, it is the desire of this Office to let sleeping dogs lie.
It is significant to note that the status of Bawku as Kusasi territory is again affirmed. The only reason or excuse for the military authorities not to act at the time was “the complete fusion of the tribes” and the fact that “nearly all the 18 Canton chiefs are Kusasis”. Both conclusions are factually correct, except that even though the Mamprusi settlers in Bawku have inter-married with Kusasis, Moshies, Bisas, Hausas etc over the generations and few today are able to speak Mampuli fluently, they insist on their Mamprusi ancestry and continue to claim to be Mamprusis.
The attitude of successive military governments was the same: “let sleeping dogs lie”. But the Kusasis would not lie and eventually got a positive hearing during the Jerry John Rawlings PNDC regime with the passage of PNDCL 75 in 1983 reversing NLCD 112 and reinstating the status quo of 1957/58. The same decree posthumously deskinned the Mamprusi Bawku Naba, Adam Azangbeo who died in 1981, posthumously restored the late Kusasi Bawku Naba, Abugrago Azoka I who passed away in 1983 to the status of Bawku Naba, and installed his son, Abugrago Asigri Azoka II as Bawku Naba in April 1984. PNDCL 75 also reinstated Bawku Skin to the status of Paramountcy.
A SUPREME COURT RULING ON BAWKU.
In April 2003, the Mamprusis, led by Alhaji Ibrahim Adam Zangbeo filed a case in the Supreme Court against Abugrago Asigri Azoka II, challenging the legitimacy of the later as Bawku Naba.
In the course of the case the Mamprusis realized their claim had no legal merit and applied to the court to discontinue the case resulting in the following ruling dated April 29th, 2003:
THE APPLICATION TO DISCONTINUE IS GRANTED BUT WITHOUT LIBERTY TO APPLY UNDER PNDCL 75 AND ARTICLE 270 AND 277 OF THE 1992 CONSTITUTION.
COSTS OF 10,000,000.00 TO THE PLAINTIFF.
This ruling was signed by Supreme Court Justices G. K. Acquah, T. K. Adzoe, S. A. Brobbey, S. G. Baddoo and DR. S. Twum. The ruling meant that Abugrago Asigri Azoka II position as Bawku Naba remained unchallenged and unchallengeable. Abugrago Asigri Azoka II therefore has been the gazetted Bawku Naba for the past thirty-nine years. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the Mamprusis refused to accept the status quo, and in late 2021 decided to perform the funeral of the posthumously deskinned Adam Azangbeo, to pave the way for the enskinment of a Mamprusi Bawku Naba by the Nayiri. This was clearly a provocation of the Kusasis and a test to the government.
PARTY POLITICS.
The widespread perception is that the Mamprusis in Bawku are NPP or UP tradition party members whilst the Kusasis are CPP/NDC party faithfuls. However, out of 15 parliamentary seats in Upper East, the NPP won one seat and that seat is in the Kusasi area and the winner is a 100% Kusasi.
The Upper East Regional Minister is a Kusasi from the Bawku area. And a Deputy Minister for information is also a Kusasi.
It is nevertheless an established fact the Mamprusis always start agitation when the NPP is in power in the hope that “their party” will intervene and restore the Bawku chieftaincy to them. But on two occasions, during the John Agyekum Kuffuor and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo administrations, the NPP refused to interfere in the Bawku chieftaincy. In fact, President Akufo- Addo has publicly declared that Abugrago Asigri Azoka II is the legitimate Bawku Naba and that whoever does not accept should go to court. The Ministers of Religious and Chieftaincy Affairs, Interior and Defence have all said so publicly. These have been reassuring to the Kusasis and infuriating to the Mamprusis.
The opposition NDC party has up until the recent killings by the military in Bawku, been conspicuously silent on the Bawku issue. Possible reasons been that even though the NDC has substantial following in the Kusasi Traditional Area, it equally has a sizeable following in Mamprugu. In fact, NDC currently holds the seat of Bawku Central and Nalerigu constituencies, the traditional Capitals of Kusasi and Mamprusi respectively. The two political parties are therefore very mindful of their political fortunes in both the Kusasi and Mamprusi areas and so are treading cautiously on the Bawku case.
THE ISSUES AT STAKE
The first issue at stake in the Bawku conflict is that the conflict is not between two royal gates over succession to the Bawku Skin. It is about one ethnic group, in this case, the Mamprusis, seeking to impose their rule over Kusasis on their own traditional land. Kusasis are the largest ethnic group in all of the Upper East and second only to Dagombas in all of the five Northern regions. All around Bawku are Kusasi towns and villages. You have to go through several Kusasi villages and towns to get to Mamprugu Traditional Area on the Gambaga scarp in the North East Region.
Mamprusis know this geographical fact and have over the years insisted on referring to the area as Bawku Traditional Area instead of Kusasi Traditional Area and Bawku Traditional Council instead of Kusasi Traditional Council.
They know the area cannot be called Mamprusi Traditional Area but they would not bring themselves to say Kusasi Traditional Area resulting in the misnomer of “Bawku Traditional Area” or “Bawku Traditional Council” which is like saying “Accra Traditional Area” or “Akropong Traditional Council”. Bawku, like Accra or Akropong are geographical locations which do not have “traditions”. It is people groups such as Kusasis, Gas, Ashantis etc who have traditions and therefore Traditional Areas.
This leads us to the second issue at stake which is that when the President of the Republic, HE Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo says rightly that Bawku has a legitimate Chief in the person of Abugrago Asigri Azoka II, he is only stating half of the truth. The whole truth is that Bawku is the commercial and traditional capital of the Kusasi people. The point needs to be publicly made that Nayiri cannot impose a Mamprusi chief over Kusasis in their traditional capital. This was the finding of the 1957 Commission of Inquiry and the ruling of the Appeals Court, which was the highest court of the land at the time.
The issue is therefore not so much as to who is the legitimate Bawku Naba currently, but whose traditional homeland is Bawku. Kusasis are the tendanas (land owners) in all of the area, including Bawku. Only Kusasis sacrifice to the land gods of the area. There is not a single Mamprusi tendana in the area and Mamprusis cannot directly offer sacrifice to any land god in the area. How can you rule over a land that you don’t own and can’t sacrifice to the gods? The word for that is colonialism or imperialism.
The third issue at stake is that while the Mamprusis want the whole world to believe they are the owners of Bawku, they have never claimed ownership of Pusiga, Zebilla, Garu, Timpane, Binduri, etc. all under Bawku, which is the paramount seat of the whole area. The Traditional Area has a total of twenty-five Divisional Chiefs all enskinned by Bawku Naba and owing allegiance to him. Not a single one of the Divisional Chiefs is a Mamprusi. To impose a Mamprusi on the Bawku Skin to rule over such an area is purely and simply colonialist. So in effect, while Mamprusis want the world to believe that the conflict is over Bawku chieftaincy, it is in actual fact a conflict over the whole of the Kusasi Traditional Area.
These are the issues at stake that many politicians of both political parties, security officials and journalists know and admit privately but are reluctant to state publicly. For those who may claim ignorance, the 1957 Commission of Inquiry report is available as public document. All the court rulings are available as public records. Any journalist or interested party can go on the ground and study the geography and people groups for themselves.
The lack of political will to state the facts publicly and tell the Mamprusis to back-off from their colonialist claims steeped in mythology, is what is fuelling the conflict in Bawku, costing lives on daily basis and millions of tax-payers monies in these difficult economic times. Responsibility for the innocent lives that are wasted on daily basis in the Bawku conflict therefore lies in the hands of politicians, “experts”, security personnel, journalists etc. who know the truth but refuse for various reasons to speak out.
:::::::::::::::::::end:::::::::::::
Rev. Prof John Azumah
Executive Director of The Sanneh Institute Visiting Professor of Yale University & President of Kusaug People's Congress (KPC)
blogpay
since November 2021 but things took a particularly violent turn the past weeks and caught national attention. Many Ghanaians, sadly including some individual state, government and opposition functionaries have literally ignored the violence as barbaric northerners killing themselves or shied away from publicly commenting on the issue because it is “too sensitive” or “too complicated”. Some media houses and personnel have largely been cowered and intimidated by parties in the conflict from doing objective journalistic work to educate Ghanaians on the issue. So-called security experts who know little to nothing about the geography, let alone history of Bawku line up on national TV stations to propagate falsehood and misinformation and offer lame academic opinions.
Total Comments: 0